Block, Scholtz granted bail
FORMER ANC provincial chairperson John Block and the CEO of Trifecta Holdings, Christo Scholtz, will remain on bail pending an application for leave to appeal to the Constitutional Court.
Northern Cape High Court Judge President Pule Tlaletsi granted them bail of R50 000 each yesterday.
The Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed the application by Block and Scholtz to appeal their conviction and sentencing last week.
They were sentenced in the Northern Cape High Court to 15 years imprisonment on charges of corruption and money laundering in 2016 after kickbacks were exchanged for the facilitation of leases for government offices with the Trifecta group of companies.
Legal representative Marius van Zyl SC stated that both his client, Scholtz, as well as Block were prepared to pay the R50 000 in addition to the R150 000 that had already been paid in bail money.
“The passports of Block and Scholtz are in the possession of the investigating officer and will remain in his possession.”
He advised that the court should insert a condition regarding the bail conditions in the event that the application to the Constitutional Court or the appeal prove to be unsuccessful, due to the uncertainty regarding Block and Scholtz being made to hand themselves over to a Correctional Services facility after the Supreme Court of Appeal had handed down judgment.
Van Zyl pointed out that the State had adopted the approach that the appellants should hand themselves over within 48 hours, when no such order had been granted by the Supreme Court of Appeal.
“We are not aware of where the State got that from. The investigating officer, Colonel Fernando Luis, had indicated to all the legal representatives that there was an office at Correctional Services where the accused could hand themselves over and that dealt with the necessary processes.”
Tlaletsi pointed out that there should not have been any confusion regarding the appellants handing themselves over to a Correctional Services facility, following the outcome of the Supreme Court of Appeal.
“The outcome of the court order was sent to the registrar of the Northern Cape High Court and notices should have have been issued to the appellants advising them of when they were expected to hand themselves over. Those steps were not followed.”
He agreed with Van Zyl that in the event that the application to the Constitutional Court or the appeal prove to be unsuccessful, the registrar of the Constitutional Court would inform the registrar of the Northern Cape High Court of the outcome.
The registrar of the Northern Cape will accordingly advise the appellants when they should hand themselves over.
Appearing for the State, advocate Peter Serunye agreed that no formal warrant of detention had been issued by the State regarding Block and Scholtz handing themselves over within the 48-hour period.
“While the State indicated that it would oppose the bail application in its court papers, it had agreed not to, after engaging with the legal representatives of the accused. They attended all court proceedings and are not deemed to be a flight risk.”
Spokesperson for the National Prosecuting Authority, Phaladi Shuping, stated that the appellants would have until September 11 to file their application to the Constitutional Court, whereupon the NPA would have 10 days to file their answering affidavits.
“We are of the view that the Constitutional Court will not arrive at a different conclusion than the Supreme Court of Appeal.”
He explained that the Constitutional Court could request the legal representatives to provide written and or oral submissions.
“The legal representatives for the appellants must provide convincing arguments that another court could come to a different conclusion. We estimate that the Constitutional Court will be able to indicate whether the case will be heard or not before the end of the year. If successful, it could possibly be heard early next year.”
Shuping added that the Supreme Court of Appeal did not always issue warrants of detention when judgment was handed down.
“Much of the confusion was created because the appellants had directly applied to the Northern Cape High Court for a bail application. The NPA was only informed of this development upon enquiry.”